🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Feb9.154509.5698@ncar.ucar.edu> shan@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Val Shanahan) writes:

>  Child support
>is most certainly a responsibility that no parent should try to get out of
>and does not fall under MY idea of being self-supporting, but even that
>can be done in such a way that the non-custodial parent can't possibly have
>a life beyond child support, that is wrong.

I can see little (read: no) justification for alimony if there are no children
involved.  However, where children are involved I can see the reason for both
child support *and* alimony.  The reason is that the custodial parent will be
devoting money *and* energy to the children which could be used for their
career if they had no kids to support.  So the non-custodial parent must do
more than simply pay his/her fair share of the kids' upkeep;  he/she must
compensate the ex for the damage to his/her career which will occur because
of the custodial arrangement.  IMHO.
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 497-1629       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
WORK: (415) 725-3859       |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK